Embedded Collectivism? Workplace Representation in France and Germany
Embedded Collectivism? Workplace Representation in France and Germany
复制标题
嵌入集体主义？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Hyman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Gumbrell;R. Hyman
在西欧的大多数国家，谈论非工会员工代表制几乎没有意义，因为独立于雇主的集体代表制原则在很大程度上制度化了，这在英美世界是被理解的。在这篇文章中，我们考察了两个国家的经验。在德国，拥有广泛权利的工会通常与工会密切合作。近年来，该系统经历了压力，越来越多的工作场所主要是较小的工作场所，既没有理事会的覆盖，也没有集体协议的覆盖；但几乎没有证据表明有替代的“发言权”机制，直接参与的制度通常是通过与理事会的谈判引入的。在法国，工会委员会的权力较少，而分裂的工会运动在“嵌入”法定机构方面不如德国工会运动那么成功，至少在私营部门是这样。尽管两国都有一些共同的趋势，但国家的独特性仍然非常明显。管理战略选择的余地越来越大，但这仍然受到制度的限制。更广泛地说，可以预期，表现出“欧洲社会模式”特征的国家将在联盟和“非联盟”的代表渠道之间保持紧密的衔接。
In most countries of western Europe it makes little sense to speak of non-union employee representation, as this is understood in the Anglo-American world, for the principle of collective representation independent of the employer is strongly institutionalised. In this article we examine experience in two countries. In Germany, works councils with a wide repertoire of rights typically work in close partnership with trade unions. The system has experienced strains in recent years, and a growing proportion of mainly smaller workplaces are covered neither by councils nor by collective agreements; but there is virtually no evidence of alternative ‘voice’ mechanisms, and systems of direct participation are normally introduced by negotiation with councils. In France, works committees have fewer powers, and a divided trade union movement has been less successful than its German counterpart in ‘embedding’ the legally mandated institutions, at least in the private sector. Despite some common trends in both countries, national distinctiveness remains very apparent. There is growing scope for managerial strategic choice, but this is still institutionally bounded. Much more generally, countries displaying characteristics of a ‘European social model’ can be expected to sustain a close articulation between union and ‘non-union’ channels of representation.